Thanks as always for a well-grounded and practical post.
I personally found that introducing an initial back-and-forth into any interaction with LLMs drastically improves most outcomes. I wrote about this in early January.
The way it works is you write your starting prompt as you wish, in natural language, then you append something along these lines to it:
“Before you respond, please ask me any clarifying questions you need to make your reply more complete and relevant. Be as thorough as needed.”
ChatGPT (GPT-4) will usually ask very pertinent, structured questions that will force you into thinking deeper about your request and what you're trying to achieve. Once you respond to the questions, ChatGPT will give you something that's much better than if you'd stuck to just a one-off request with no follow-up.
"For most people, worrying about optimizing prompting is a waste of time. They can just talk to the AI, ask for what they want, and get great results without worrying too much about prompts. In fact, almost every AI insider I speak to believes that “being good at prompting” is not a valuable skill for most people in the future, because, as AIs improve, they will infer your intentions better than you can."
Interesting to see this perspective, I suspect that there's a lot of truth to this and some further implications to consider. Often I see commentary on 'prompt engineering' or 'tricks' to get the best response from models, less often do I see any recognition that the user's proficiency with and comand of language are important for achieving good results. I suspect that ability to use natural language with precision, clarity, and nuance will increasingly be an important skill on a broader basis than specific knowledge of 'prompt engineering'. I wonder whether this also implies that education may switch focus back from STEM towards language and humanities. The familiar pattern of students being comfertable with failing english (or at least performing relatively weakly in the subject) happy in the knowledge that they can progress to a good STEM carreer on the back of strong science / maths skills may not be viable for much longer.
Really apricate the linked resources, have pre-ordered the book, but it doesn't look like any of the links for an audio version go anywhere (at least in the UK)? Is that on the way? As you can probably tell, I like to be able to listen to my reading.
Thanks Ethan! Fabulous, as always. I have found the best way for me to generate useful prompts consistently is to build my own prompting custom gpt in ChatGPT. I simply took the most recent and credible research papers I could find on prompting to use as my knowledge base, then used the gpt itself to steadily iterate a custom instructions prompt until I got one that both illustrated the primary principles and consistently generated prompts reflecting them. For bonus, I built into the prompt a request to describe the principles it was illustrating in each delivered prompt, which then allows less experienced members of my team to learn the principles while getting advanced prompts. The prompter isn’t necessary for simple tasks but I find it is vastly superior for complex tasks, and was easy to build.
I was intrigued by the greater output of idea diversity of the prompts that assigned a Steve Jobs persona. It got me thinking about the scope of his legacy. Simply put, Jobs' legacy dwarfs Musk's.
The truth is that few visionaries have embodied and helped shape the digital age quite like Steve Jobs, both in terms of the range of revolutionary products and services, and in terms of his iconoclasm, which sought above all to empower artistic creativity, challenge the status quo, and inspire people with innovations that astonished both functionally and aesthetically.
Reflecting on that legacy, I found the higher idea diversity of prompts using his persona less surprising and more understandable, if not entirely explicable.
But to be fair to Elon Musk, it's probably too early to think about a legacy that's still unfolding and very much in the making, rendering any assessment of Musk's legacy premature. Excuse me for thinking out loud.
There was a time when knowing on how search on Google made a difference with tricks like using quotes for an exact match. These days, Search works well enough without them. We will see a similar shift for prompting soon.
One concrete way to get there is through cheaper and faster LLM inference so each query (prompt) generates multiple responses with the user choosing the one that fits their intentions the best, which is what we do when we google.
This is so real, the notion of framing AI prompts within the context of Star Trek episodes or political thrillers to enhance mathematical problem-solving abilities seems unconventional and challenges traditional methods, prompting a reevaluation of our approaches to leveraging AI capabilities effectively.
I find that rather than presenting a good INITIAL prompt to chatbots that a CONVERSATION works so much better. E.g. just ask for some ideas with no special prompting. Then respond to them or ask for some more that are very different. After a few exchanges I've accomplished what I want in a natural manner.
The problem is that one can do experiments with initial prompts and their responses but it is very tricky to quantitatively evaluate conversations. So everyone is looking for their keys under the street lights.
I'm active on Twitter and have built 2 AI apps after experimenting with a lot of prompts.
Yet I'm tired of tech bros suggesting we just need to use this one special word or trick to unlock all the capabilities of AI.
Exactly as you said, not all prompts work for everyone, every time. It's an evolving beast no one has any real grasp on. We're all just muddling along!
Hey Ethan! This was really interesting. I especially like what you're doing with More Useful Things! I built a Pickaxe studio out of the Prompts for Instructors section and wanted to hear what you think of this presentation.
Is anyone here aware of people making conceptual art out of prompting LLMs in very strange ways? The Captain's Log prompt doesn't look that strange to me, though it is a bit funny that it works so well. It makes me wonder what possibilities lie in wait by using prompts unlike any string of words we've seen before.
This is really helpful. Thank you! I've been working with GPT-4 a lot as well as a few of the open source models. Chain of thought is the approach I've stumbled upon that I've had the most consistent results with, but I haven't really tried the other prompts that you mention give consistent results. Things are still pretty hit or miss with me on all things.
This weekend I worked with GPT-4 to try and build a PowerPoint presentation. I spent much of the last two days trying to get it to do so, but this weekend it told me either that it doesn't have the capability to do this, or it consistently gives errors when analyzing and never generates a PPT file, or it generates a PPT file that is literally just the prompt I gave it in black text on a white background.
Yet, back in November I used it to generate a PPT that had pretty decent content, was visually pretty good, complete with stock photos and varied layouts and consistent colors. I had to replace the stock photos with ones that were more context appropriate and do some wordsmithing on the text...but all in all not bad and saved me hours compared to doing it from a blank slate. This week I would have saved hours if I hadn't tried to use AI at all.
Ethan, your exploration into the "irreducible weirdness of prompting AIs" is both enlightening and fascinating! It's intriguing how the effectiveness of AI prompts can hinge on such imaginative scenarios, like Star Trek episodes or political thrillers for solving math problems. This unexpected twist not only adds a layer of creativity to our interactions with AI but also challenges us to think outside the box when it comes to prompting techniques. Your efforts in creating a companion website, More Useful Things, as a resource hub is commendable and undoubtedly a valuable tool for many.
Your dive into the necessity of experimentation in prompt crafting, alongside the realisation that there's no one-size-fits-all solution, is incredibly insightful. It's especially interesting how the study you mentioned showcases the potential of Chain of Thought prompting in generating diverse ideas. This not only underscores the importance of structured prompting but also highlights the nuanced understanding required to effectively communicate with AI. It's fascinating how these interactions blend science and art, encouraging users to develop an intuition for AI "personalities." Your work is a testament to the endless possibilities that thoughtful and imaginative prompting can unlock, making AI more accessible and effective for a wide array of applications.
Wait a second, 10 hours to get good at prompting a given LLM, and 10,000 hours to get good at concert piano playing? I know what I would choose. ;)
Anecdote 1:
I asked Claude 3 Opus to write an "unreserved recommendation" for a student that had gotten a subpar grade in one of my classes. Claude said "are your sure about that? shouldn't you write a more nuanced recommendation, taking into account that low grade" I was initially put off, "what is this uppity AI?" And then I realized that I was getting a clue about the AI personality even without realizing--like Ethan writes--that knowing an AI personality will help inform your prompts. I acquiesced but, pushing back, said, but this student got a better grade in the next class of mine which they took. To which Claude got back on task and drafted a recommendation to both of our liking. [What just happened?]
Anecdote 2:
Sometimes my spouse struggles with phrasing, words, etc. We were talking the other day about an ordeal we have been through over the past year. I was bringing AI into the conversation: "how should we feel about", "how could we better promulgate our interests", "what is the breakdown in communication here". To which, my wife said, "I don't care what you are typing into AI, I want to know what you think. How you feel!" I pushed back, by typing my interpretation of your thoughts, I get perspective from AI and round-tripping back to you, we are honing our communication. Treating AI like an impartial observer, seeing if a message sent is the one which is received and which can be re-worded. That was amazing, as long as we didn't give up. [Did that really happen?]
Thanks as always for a well-grounded and practical post.
I personally found that introducing an initial back-and-forth into any interaction with LLMs drastically improves most outcomes. I wrote about this in early January.
The way it works is you write your starting prompt as you wish, in natural language, then you append something along these lines to it:
“Before you respond, please ask me any clarifying questions you need to make your reply more complete and relevant. Be as thorough as needed.”
ChatGPT (GPT-4) will usually ask very pertinent, structured questions that will force you into thinking deeper about your request and what you're trying to achieve. Once you respond to the questions, ChatGPT will give you something that's much better than if you'd stuck to just a one-off request with no follow-up.
"For most people, worrying about optimizing prompting is a waste of time. They can just talk to the AI, ask for what they want, and get great results without worrying too much about prompts. In fact, almost every AI insider I speak to believes that “being good at prompting” is not a valuable skill for most people in the future, because, as AIs improve, they will infer your intentions better than you can."
Interesting to see this perspective, I suspect that there's a lot of truth to this and some further implications to consider. Often I see commentary on 'prompt engineering' or 'tricks' to get the best response from models, less often do I see any recognition that the user's proficiency with and comand of language are important for achieving good results. I suspect that ability to use natural language with precision, clarity, and nuance will increasingly be an important skill on a broader basis than specific knowledge of 'prompt engineering'. I wonder whether this also implies that education may switch focus back from STEM towards language and humanities. The familiar pattern of students being comfertable with failing english (or at least performing relatively weakly in the subject) happy in the knowledge that they can progress to a good STEM carreer on the back of strong science / maths skills may not be viable for much longer.
Really apricate the linked resources, have pre-ordered the book, but it doesn't look like any of the links for an audio version go anywhere (at least in the UK)? Is that on the way? As you can probably tell, I like to be able to listen to my reading.
Here is this post AI narrated:
https://askwhocastsai.substack.com/p/captains-log-the-irreducible-weirdness
Thanks Ethan! Fabulous, as always. I have found the best way for me to generate useful prompts consistently is to build my own prompting custom gpt in ChatGPT. I simply took the most recent and credible research papers I could find on prompting to use as my knowledge base, then used the gpt itself to steadily iterate a custom instructions prompt until I got one that both illustrated the primary principles and consistently generated prompts reflecting them. For bonus, I built into the prompt a request to describe the principles it was illustrating in each delivered prompt, which then allows less experienced members of my team to learn the principles while getting advanced prompts. The prompter isn’t necessary for simple tasks but I find it is vastly superior for complex tasks, and was easy to build.
I was intrigued by the greater output of idea diversity of the prompts that assigned a Steve Jobs persona. It got me thinking about the scope of his legacy. Simply put, Jobs' legacy dwarfs Musk's.
The truth is that few visionaries have embodied and helped shape the digital age quite like Steve Jobs, both in terms of the range of revolutionary products and services, and in terms of his iconoclasm, which sought above all to empower artistic creativity, challenge the status quo, and inspire people with innovations that astonished both functionally and aesthetically.
Reflecting on that legacy, I found the higher idea diversity of prompts using his persona less surprising and more understandable, if not entirely explicable.
But to be fair to Elon Musk, it's probably too early to think about a legacy that's still unfolding and very much in the making, rendering any assessment of Musk's legacy premature. Excuse me for thinking out loud.
There was a time when knowing on how search on Google made a difference with tricks like using quotes for an exact match. These days, Search works well enough without them. We will see a similar shift for prompting soon.
One concrete way to get there is through cheaper and faster LLM inference so each query (prompt) generates multiple responses with the user choosing the one that fits their intentions the best, which is what we do when we google.
This is so real, the notion of framing AI prompts within the context of Star Trek episodes or political thrillers to enhance mathematical problem-solving abilities seems unconventional and challenges traditional methods, prompting a reevaluation of our approaches to leveraging AI capabilities effectively.
I find that rather than presenting a good INITIAL prompt to chatbots that a CONVERSATION works so much better. E.g. just ask for some ideas with no special prompting. Then respond to them or ask for some more that are very different. After a few exchanges I've accomplished what I want in a natural manner.
The problem is that one can do experiments with initial prompts and their responses but it is very tricky to quantitatively evaluate conversations. So everyone is looking for their keys under the street lights.
I'm active on Twitter and have built 2 AI apps after experimenting with a lot of prompts.
Yet I'm tired of tech bros suggesting we just need to use this one special word or trick to unlock all the capabilities of AI.
Exactly as you said, not all prompts work for everyone, every time. It's an evolving beast no one has any real grasp on. We're all just muddling along!
Hey Ethan! This was really interesting. I especially like what you're doing with More Useful Things! I built a Pickaxe studio out of the Prompts for Instructors section and wanted to hear what you think of this presentation.
https://studio.pickaxeproject.com/STUDIOYE69TXL994MPZ9H
Is anyone here aware of people making conceptual art out of prompting LLMs in very strange ways? The Captain's Log prompt doesn't look that strange to me, though it is a bit funny that it works so well. It makes me wonder what possibilities lie in wait by using prompts unlike any string of words we've seen before.
Sadly, www.moreusefulthings.com is blocked by our security team as a risk. :(
I find your work very valuable. I'm glad you have this site. You're the first one I go to to understand the current AI and what it can do.
This is really helpful. Thank you! I've been working with GPT-4 a lot as well as a few of the open source models. Chain of thought is the approach I've stumbled upon that I've had the most consistent results with, but I haven't really tried the other prompts that you mention give consistent results. Things are still pretty hit or miss with me on all things.
This weekend I worked with GPT-4 to try and build a PowerPoint presentation. I spent much of the last two days trying to get it to do so, but this weekend it told me either that it doesn't have the capability to do this, or it consistently gives errors when analyzing and never generates a PPT file, or it generates a PPT file that is literally just the prompt I gave it in black text on a white background.
Yet, back in November I used it to generate a PPT that had pretty decent content, was visually pretty good, complete with stock photos and varied layouts and consistent colors. I had to replace the stock photos with ones that were more context appropriate and do some wordsmithing on the text...but all in all not bad and saved me hours compared to doing it from a blank slate. This week I would have saved hours if I hadn't tried to use AI at all.
Ethan, your exploration into the "irreducible weirdness of prompting AIs" is both enlightening and fascinating! It's intriguing how the effectiveness of AI prompts can hinge on such imaginative scenarios, like Star Trek episodes or political thrillers for solving math problems. This unexpected twist not only adds a layer of creativity to our interactions with AI but also challenges us to think outside the box when it comes to prompting techniques. Your efforts in creating a companion website, More Useful Things, as a resource hub is commendable and undoubtedly a valuable tool for many.
Your dive into the necessity of experimentation in prompt crafting, alongside the realisation that there's no one-size-fits-all solution, is incredibly insightful. It's especially interesting how the study you mentioned showcases the potential of Chain of Thought prompting in generating diverse ideas. This not only underscores the importance of structured prompting but also highlights the nuanced understanding required to effectively communicate with AI. It's fascinating how these interactions blend science and art, encouraging users to develop an intuition for AI "personalities." Your work is a testament to the endless possibilities that thoughtful and imaginative prompting can unlock, making AI more accessible and effective for a wide array of applications.
Wait a second, 10 hours to get good at prompting a given LLM, and 10,000 hours to get good at concert piano playing? I know what I would choose. ;)
Anecdote 1:
I asked Claude 3 Opus to write an "unreserved recommendation" for a student that had gotten a subpar grade in one of my classes. Claude said "are your sure about that? shouldn't you write a more nuanced recommendation, taking into account that low grade" I was initially put off, "what is this uppity AI?" And then I realized that I was getting a clue about the AI personality even without realizing--like Ethan writes--that knowing an AI personality will help inform your prompts. I acquiesced but, pushing back, said, but this student got a better grade in the next class of mine which they took. To which Claude got back on task and drafted a recommendation to both of our liking. [What just happened?]
Anecdote 2:
Sometimes my spouse struggles with phrasing, words, etc. We were talking the other day about an ordeal we have been through over the past year. I was bringing AI into the conversation: "how should we feel about", "how could we better promulgate our interests", "what is the breakdown in communication here". To which, my wife said, "I don't care what you are typing into AI, I want to know what you think. How you feel!" I pushed back, by typing my interpretation of your thoughts, I get perspective from AI and round-tripping back to you, we are honing our communication. Treating AI like an impartial observer, seeing if a message sent is the one which is received and which can be re-worded. That was amazing, as long as we didn't give up. [Did that really happen?]